Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[TinselKoala]

(snip)

The ZED is not an open source development project.  It was developed privately, but partially shared here with strings attached.  Private development continues at great expense to the private investors.  I see nothing wrong in how it is being shared on this forum.  Participation is optional.  Disclosure: I have not invested my personal money into this project at this point, just my time.

Now back to sim development.

Did you notice.... on the front "Home" page of this forum, you find this, in big bold letters:

Welcome to OverUnity.com
The International Open Source Free Energy Research Forum

I've highlighted the part that people seem to have trouble seeing.

And you speak in the past tense when you say "the Zed was privately developed".... yet we read just last week of a major new development that would appear to involve a complete redesign, eliminating the bags and transfer pumps. So perhaps saying "was developed" is not as correct as "is being developed". Not only that...... there is the comment from MrWayne saying he thinks the Replicators might get there first.... "there" being the working demonstration model that actually does run itself. So maybe "is being developed" is also a bit strong... perhaps "will hopefully be developed with the help of forum members" is more accurate still.

[mondrasek]

TK .. a few here at this thread [they know who they are & thankyou] have taken the time to build something [real or sim] & report their findings to the forum, either good or bad - you are also part of that small group, willing to explore the concepts of a ZED or a dual ZED to establish facts rather than beliefs, delusions, hopes or desires - in short to dispense with distractions & let the chips fall where they may.

I think we can only rely on the goodwill of those few people to get to the bottom of Mr Wayne's claims - others have different agenda's that don't necessarily fit with discussing their findings or facts here, that is obvious - though I'll wager that they are not adverse to reading thru the thread for information that might be useful.

All that has been established here so far will aid see3d in calibrating his sim for a single layer ZED analog - when that is reliable & accurate he can build multi layer versions with performance confidence - this can be checked against real world builds in a feed back loop & save the builders time, effort & money - that has to be a good thing.

VERY well said, Sir.

M.

[TinselKoala]

For those experimenting with raising and lowering a reservoir, connected by a flex tube to the bottom of their pod chambers, like wildew and, I think, mondrasek, allow me to make a couple of suggestions.

First, try to use a large bore connecting flex tube. There will be less energy lost to friction and viscosity and turbulence and things will equalize faster.
It would be good to have a valve or at least a simple pinch-off clamp on this tube.

I don't think that the speed of input is that important at this point. The start and endpoints of the lift and the quantities of water in the reservoir are the important things. I'd suggest sizing the moving reservoir so that it doesn't empty completely and doesn't overflow either, at the bottom or the top; this will make the water quantity involved easier to measure.

And it's the centers of mass of the water that's important. The Zed will have "rectangular" looking cross sections when viewed from the side and the CofM will be halfway from bottom to top of these rectangles. Same for the moving reservoir. Don't forget the "rectangle" that appears under the Pod when it rises.

So... we define a reference height, like the table or the bottom of the Zed chamber, and call that zero. For input we need to know the starting quantity of water in the moving reservoir and the height of its CofM, easy if your reservoir is cylindrical. For output, the weight on top and the CofM of all the little "rectangles" of water. The Zed is precharged and bottomed with the weight in position (external or internal "restraint"?) , CofM of water "rectangles" recorded. Then the reservoir is lifted however high necessary to do the work, and once the water has stopped flowing the remaining quantity and CofM is recorded. Then the reservoir is lowered to whatever extent necessary to recover just the original amount of water, height of CofM recorded (probably will be negative) and the _VALVE CLOSED_, then the reservoir is brought back to the original starting height.

Now.... is the weight back to start? And... when you open the valve does anything happen?

See where I'm going with this: You will have completed a full cycle with whatever temporary "suction" assist (lowering below zero height) is necessary to get your original water back in the reservoir, and you've then returned the input back to the start configuration. So is there output remaining in the system, as pressure or lift?

[mondrasek]

Just a quick note to those who might be building.  Acrylic appear the best way to go if you have the funds or "have those tubes in stock."

I've been building out of Pepsi bottles (PETE) with acrylic ends.  So I make tubes that are not very round out of that material.  But the end caps make one end very round.  The other end is not so round.  At ALL!

So a tip I received from see3D has been great:  Bond a loop of wire to the open edge of the risers/retainer walls.  It has been a great improvement to my simple setup today.  I can now bend the metal rim of the open end of my Risers until they are round.

THANKS DENNIS!

My only regret is that I did not get this tip before finishing my initial build.  So my retainer walls cannot receive the wire hoops because they are so close together and inside the taller Outer wall.  That means there is no space to work in which to add the hoop improvements.

Hope this helps.

M.

[wildew]

TK is so detail oriented I wish he was building - or maybe closer and working with mine - my inadequate test methods will have to do for me I guess.
Major proof ( to me ) that loading and maintaining big differentials is a measurable bonus.
First cycle test I did was with a total 0f 8.5 lbs steady load, lifting and removing 1 additional pound.
I have added a shut off valve and head tube to "exhaust" from.

Major blown skirt with too much weight last night so I studied the spreadsheets and did my own rough calcs to check and they actually matched pretty close to 1 digit which is closer than I can really measure anyway...

With this 1U setup my max differential can be achieved with 23 fl oz in the gap prior to setting the pod / riser in and that will support lifting just under 20 lbs total - 1 inch lift, before a blow out.

POD / riser is 3.5 lbs
I'm defining "cycle" as lift the entire assembly 1", remove the "lift" weight.
Shut the input valve and drain until the pod returns to the starting point - very close to bottom.
Measure the difference between the lifted head and the lowest head needed to sink.
Measure the amount of water drained.

Reapply the lift weight.
Pour the water back into the input cylinder to lift.

First cycle test was with 5lbs added plus 1lb lift weight and it ended up taking inputs of lifting 2 lbs 4.5 inches to cycle. 
( max differential in the 1U was 3" )

Tonight's test:
10lbs ballast added to the 3.5 lb riser and a 5lb lift weight.
( max differential now at 10" )
1.5 lbs water lifted 6" would cycle the 5lb lift weight 1"
Same work input to cycle?
5x the output?
Still very under unity but major improvement?

Dale