Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[minnie]

Hi,
   with the see-saw if the apple goes from one to the other nothing happens, once the one with the apple sinks work will have to be done
because the one with the apple will be lower. If one takes a bite out of the apple the piece must be spat out or placed at fulcrum so that an advantage is gained. Eventually the apple will be out of it and the process stops.
   If I were mrwayne I can envisage a bit of pressure rising-in my knickers!

[TinselKoala]

Hi,
   with the see-saw if the apple goes from one to the other nothing happens, once the one with the apple sinks work will have to be done
because the one with the apple will be lower.

The apple is tossed horizontally. The greater inertia of the kids on the see-saw keeps them going in the same direction for a short time. The kid catching the apple will continue upwards due to this inertia, until the system "catches up" and she begins to sink. As the seesaw is again level she tosses the apple back (after taking a small bite out).

If one takes a bite out of the apple the piece must be spat out or placed at fulcrum so that an advantage is gained.

Nope. A tiny bite of apple stays with the kid. The rest of the apple is tossed to the other kid. If you want to spit it overboard or place it at the fulcrum, that's ok with me too. The advantage remains, getting smaller and smaller until, either way ....

Eventually the apple will be out of it and the process stops.

If I were mrwayne I can envisage a bit of pressure rising-in my knickers!

And here's what we actually have ( or have been told we actually have):

We have two large cylindrical and multilayered buoyancy-pressure systems. Each one is balanced around its neutrally buoyant point, like a spring-loaded automatic bollard, so that a small change in the buoyancy-maintaining condition can cause the floating assembly to rise or sink, just as in the Cartesian diver or the automatic bollard. The two systems are connected cross-wise by mechanical and/or hydraulic linkages... like two equally balanced kids on a see-saw. A system has been described and even illustrated in animation that serves effectively to transfer a small amount of weight and/or buoyancy change from one side to the other. This makes the system a force amplifier already. And, like all amplifiers that can be fed back their inputs with a phase shift of 180 degrees.... like the kids throwing the apple on the seesaw or the hydraulics and horizontal rams of the Zeds --- the system can oscillate in a feedback manner.
All of this is out in the open. The results of our experimenters with their layered systems illustrate the automatic bollard portion of the system, where a small force input results in a large motion of a heavy assembly, due to the precharge spring. The thought experiment of Dez and Zed with the apple illustrates how a dual system would rock back and forth given a work-neutral shifting of weight. The animation on MrWayne's websites show the necessary working parts doing just that: changing buoyancy and effective weight in just the right manner and phase timing to produce a feedback oscillation in the force amplifier that is the dual Zed system.

All that's left is the pixie dust. In the thought experiment, the input required to make the system move comes from the input of the apple, unbalanced at first, then finally balanced and stopped. If the apple wasn't eaten, was tossed back and forth at just the right time AND THERE WERE NO LOSSES.... the kids could continue rocking until Momma called them Home for good.

However we know that in any real system there will be losses. So the critical part of Mister Wayne's claim is still not understood... how to get that system working "forever" even against its losses, and even considering that the apple can't really be tossed "work free" since there are losses there too.

But fortunately... or unfortunately.... there is no need to understand or explain that which HAS NOT BEEN DEMONSTRATED.

[TinselKoala]

Yes TK we have heard all about system failures from Wayne, when they make a change they run into issues, errors, whether they be human or mechanical.

IIRC we were not told initially how long the system ran while Mark was visiting, nor were we told of the reason for termination of the run, it was you that that put forward the concept that the system failed.

Mister Wayne has told us that the longest time any of the systems has run is under four hours. He's told us of the leaks, the overtorquing, the failures to perform as expected. The system Mark videoed had obvious problems, it was unbalanced, only one side sounded like it was "producing" power .... yet its screen lit up and it ran.... and it did NOT have a generator, I seem to recall,  and the electrical parts were running on batteries that it itself didn't charge, as we finally got MrWayne to "admit", I str. Mark went away unsatisfied.... and all deadlines since then have been put off because the self-imposed goals haven't been met..."due diligence" as MrWayne says in one breath, and then "960 percent" in another, without providing any evidence of due diligence other than another missed deadline and some more words.
If the system DIDN'T FAIL or wouldn't fail, webby, why wasn't it allowed to run for two days? Surely Mark would have enjoyed actually seeing what he went down there to see.

I agree that if something happens inside the system so that the original relationships between the water and the risers changes that the system will loose its advantage and stop functioning.

I am not sure if "we" have decided anything accept that "we" disagree.

Remember, it is not how much "I" put into a system, it is how "much" is put into the system regardless of source.

Mister Wayne says that once the precharge is in, before the system starts, then _nothing_ is put in after that from ANY source. And then you start it, and once the system has run for a while, during which while you are taking power OUT of the system, you can stop it, and measure that it is exactly as it was before you started it, with the original precharge pressures and water levels exactly as they were before starting. Or am I getting this part wrong? Please correct me right away if Mister Wayne is NOT claiming the above for his system.

I'd love to see a demonstration of this.

[minnie]

Hi,
  thanks for your response. Are we saying that the apple is tossed in an arc so there is some reaction vertically? I was assuming that it
was shuttled horizontally giving only lateral force.

[mondrasek]

TK,

While I appreciate your see-saw analogy, I can't quite see how it is supposed to fully represent a dual ZED system.  On every upstroke the rising ZED is restricted hydraulically and must produce more upward force before rising than the one that is lowering.  In my little test setup I simulate this by adding a weight to the ZED at the bottom of stroke that it must lift while rising.  That weight is removed at the top of stroke.  So in the see-saw analogy don't you need to hand a sack of apples to the child that is at the bottom and have that lift with them to the top where you would remove it again?  Isn't that entire portion of a dual ZED system missing from the see-saw analogy?

M.