Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[Red_Sunset]

..............................................................
Well, good for you. But wouldn't it be better if you simply refuted my thought experiment with a logical argument, carefully reasoned, instead of reacting so emotionally and with your veiled insults? Maybe less satisfying, but certainly more filling.

Isn't this discussion supposed to be about where the extra work comes from in a Zed system? I'll tell you this much with ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY... it is not coming from the Zero Point energy.

Hi Tinselkoala,

Here you had the opportunity to receive the feelings Wayne got consistently on this forum (termed being treated with your own medicine). I agree this is not productive and is not the proper way to go forward.  I agree with the water drop analogy although I am getting lost to a clear purpose this serves because this is well researched and defined in physics books.  A new invention has to have something new that was not known or overlooked in physics or a correlation of some kind. Optimizing water transfer is only a secondary aspect to the whole objective, because not optimizing would be counter productive and not sensible.

Can you expand on your absolute statement
You are exploring the zed and make the following statement with "ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY... it is not coming from the Zero Point energy".   What basis did you use for the statement to categorically state with absolute certainty ?  In previous mails it was clearly stated by the inventor that it comes from "gravity".
Does this mean you are coming to terms that there is over-unity in the zed and it is just a question what is providing this energy ?

Copied from my message on 22-Sept,  this was a general generic statement only, not specifically referring to the Zed, only OU in general.
"The question or statement that comes up very often in OU situations is about creating a condition that disturbs the balance of the environment (universe) and opens a window to extract energy, often referred to as "zero point energy", the universal energy that maintains the overall balance. "

Regards, Michel

[Red_Sunset]

Got to praise webby1 in that he has a far superior understanding into how the Travis system works than the closed minded know it all skeptics.
Regards, Larry

Hi Larry,
I am happy you got it, because I lost Webby1 in his last mail, I gather that he is making differentiation between head water and stroke displacement water but can not see the point beyond.

With reference to the flat top,
I see you point and you most likely are right when you go into the minute details (what I didn't do). I did only a gross assessment to the difference. I can see your point that it could/should be the same, since in one we over-layer the lift area's and in the other we over-layer the pressure.
In a simplified way, I saw the flat top as one central lift area with heads in front to increase the pressure. Didn't see the lift area in the layers as being sizable enough to make an importance.

Using the same model, using max. head, the layered model had ~ 20% more lift distributed equally over all surfaces variation ~10-15%.
The flat top had less lift and 80% of the lift force was concentrated in the center area. Doing an equal area redistribution didn't make much of an improvement.
For more details, I need to revisit the calculation, I might have a gotcha in it.

Regards, Michel

[TinselKoala]

Red_Sunset said,

Can you expand on your absolute statement
You are exploring the zed and make the following statement with "ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY... it is not coming from the Zero Point energy".   What basis did you use for the statement to categorically state with absolute certainty ?  In previous mails it was clearly stated by the inventor that it comes from "gravity".
Does this mean you are coming to terms that there is over-unity in the zed and it is just a question what is providing this energy ?

No, I am not "coming to terms" with any overunity performance in the Zed because none has been demonstrated and no _correct_ analysis indicates that any should be expected.
The inventor never states anything "clearly" as far as I can see. I can't find the quote right now where the Zero Point energy was considered as a possible explanation but I'm sure some others remember it and can tell us where exactly it is.
The bases, plural, that I use to be able to make the statement categorically are first, that I understand something of what the term "Zero Point Energy" actually means, and that there are no systems contained within the Zed that are of the proper dimensions or arrangements to interact with this energy, which undeniably exists. In addition, there is no need to invoke unusual explanations for phenomena that have yet to be shown to exist: the alleged OU behaviour of MrWayne's invention, or any of the compound hydraulic cylinders or simulations that have been shown to us here.

Some readings on Zero Point energy:
http://www.earthtech.org/publications/fusion_facts.pdf
http://www.earthtech.org/publications/davis_STAIF_conference_3.pdf
http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0106080
http://www.earthtech.org/publications/spec_sci_tech.pdf
http://www.earthtech.org/publications/PRAv40_4857.pdf

[TinselKoala]

In mondrasek's model, at the _start_, after precharge but before pouring in the 74 mL of lift water.....

Is the riser/weight combo resting hard against the floor of the containing chamber with its full weight, or is it already nearly "floating" with much of its weight offset by the precharge pressures and buoyancies?

It seems to me that in Mondrasek's video, the riser/weight combo starts to rise up as soon as the first bit of water is poured into the tube. Is this correct? Is the riser/weight actually almost floating at the start, and then lowered back to this almost floating condition at the end?

If the riser/weight is _not_ sitting hard against the chamber floor at the start, with its full weight, but rather has some weight suspended by the precharge.... then you are in the same situation as the automatic bollard in the video I linked earlier. That is, some of the energy required to lift is stored in the "spring" of the precharge, just as in the automatic bollard.

[mondrasek]

Hi mondrasek,

I have a quick query on the above three posts I've hand picked out of the last couple of days (you can't leave the thread for a moment without 5 more pages appearing )

It seems to my untrained eye that you don't need to only lift your input water over 10mm, but over the head of the water and thus, in the current setup at least, that would require lifting it from the underside of Zed where the water is obtained from, to a minimum of 241mm.

This would seem to me that the input work done was 74g x 241mm = 1783.4g-cm and output from the lift being 1217g-cm, which obviously seems to be nowhere near as good!?

So it seems that there's a need to find a way of finding out what we can take out from the down stroke too. I believe this is where Wayne has pointed to the 'extra' from his ZEDs in previous posts.

Either that or I've not understood something in the work calculation correctly?

Amo

@AmoLago, first, let me correct an errata:  I started by saying the input water would rise only 10 mm as the entire 74 gr. of input water was added.  I had measured this value roughly when doing setup and pre testing runs.  But something must have changed.  I must have adjusted the setup between that initial observation to the times that I more accurately measure those values for Michel after posting the video.  The first of these re-measurements showed a rise of ~46 mm.  Since this was considered contrary to what was expected it was measured a third time with much more deliberate care that all movements and levels had settled.  This time the input water level had risen ~ 40 mm.

My arguement that the lift of water was NOT the entire 271 mm is from this thought experiment:  Consider a container with exactly 74 grams of water sitting beside the input tube so that the top of the water in both are at the same height.  Place a prefilled siphone tube into the water in both.  Now as I raise the container with 74 grams of water a small amount water will begin to flow through the siphon tube from the 74 gr. container into the input tube water column.  The water level in the input tube will aslo begin to rise a bit along it's expected 40 mm increase.  So to transfer all the water from the 74 gr. container into the input tube it must be raised exactly 40 mm.  Now instead of the vent valve I use to remove that 74 grams of water durring the sink, I could remove it by reversing the siphon set up by lowering the container that originally contained the 74 gr. of water by 40 mm again.

The way I vent water is misleading, because it also allows energy to leave the system:  The pressure in the water at the valve is lost.  This is also energy that is not being measured in this experiment.  So it was my thought that I may be simply returning that exact same amount of energy to the water when I lift it up the 271 mm.  The siphon example is intended to show that removal and return of water from this system is an energy neutral cycle (barring real world losses to friction).

But there is another NEW consideration that I had while writing this to you.  While the siphon example can be used when no Lift Mass is removed or added to the ZED, it does not apply when that is considered.  Because when the Lift Mass is removed or added the water level in the input tube changes drastically.  And so the container for the 74 grams of water would also have to change by the same height to maintan the proper siphon arrangement.  I look forward to what the rest of the gang has to say about this!

M.