Hydro Differential pressure exchange over unity system.

[KanShi]

@DreamThinkBuild: That's the third bet Hawking lost recently - those experiments deal with forces and scales that a regular inventor does not have access to, though.

@LarryC: why don't you add input energy calculation to your spreadsheet (you can average the values between the start and the end state so you do not have to run a simulator, since the progress is linear)? It has been done over at PESN and the energy excess was 0 (and that's not counting energy transfer losses) - eg. not overunity.

Also, compare ZED to a telescopic hydraulic lift of the same size - for the same energy input you will get the same energy output (if you leave the buoyancy pod out, since buoyancy is known not to be overunity). ZED is a closed system that only lifts internal weights, unlike a lift that lifts external weights - that is why it does not need seals. Even if you could reduce energy losses to zero, you will still end up with only unity.

Again, see the attached image (detailed calculations are in my earlier post)

[neptune]

@KanShi. You suggested that we leave out the buoyancy pod as buoyancy is known not to be overunity. So presumably, when we compare a ZED to a standard hydraulic cylinder, we can leave out the cylinder`s piston.After all it is known that pistons are not overunity....

[KanShi]

@neptune You can do that but then there is nothing left to compare. Anyway, while you mention it, ZED's hydraulic part (hydraulic lift) is not overunity and buoyancy is not overunity, so the device as a whole cannot be overunity (effeciencies of parts connected in series have to be multiplied).

Also, as you see from the calculations and the attached image. The lifting force of a ZED is less than a hydropneumatic lift with a buoyancy pod of the same volume (and the same volume of liquids used). Not that it matters, what you should be comparing is not force but energy and as soon as you do that, it will be clear as day that you won't achieve overunity (unless you are working for/are friends with Mr. Wayne, ofc, in that case, you will be claiming overunity regardless of reality).

[mrwayne]

@DreamThinkBuild: That's the third bet Hawking lost recently - those experiments deal with forces and scales that a regular inventor does not have access to, though.

@LarryC: why don't you add input energy calculation to your spreadsheet (you can average the values between the start and the end state so you do not have to run a simulator, since the progress is linear)? It has been done over at PESN and the energy excess was 0 (and that's not counting energy transfer losses) - eg. not overunity.

Also, compare ZED to a telescopic hydraulic lift of the same size - for the same energy input you will get the same energy output (if you leave the buoyancy pod out, since buoyancy is known not to be overunity). ZED is a closed system that only lifts internal weights, unlike a lift that lifts external weights - that is why it does not need seals. Even if you could reduce energy losses to zero, you will still end up with only unity.

Again, see the attached image (detailed calculations are in my earlier post)

Hello Kanshi,
I am suprised you chimed in here once again.

Please take note - that you, Mark E /Seamus / and Micro controller have made your opinons clear.
At the Same time, you state that the ZED is not O/U - a Dozen replications of our claim of over unity has been accurately calculated and shared with me.

Power/ Energy/ and Force - some replicators were satisfied with force - most followed through. Those same people had read your posts on Peswiki and Overunity.com.
I think we are all waiting to see if you follow through. Your repeated logic "that if one part is not overunity then all parts can not be over unity - is limiting your understanding.

The succesful replications took the whole process into acount - and the best took three of the seperate Overunity functions in the system.

First - Our input volume times pressure exceeds a hydraulic cylinder - you have not yet understood that - I had hoped when you reported a 33%  to  and the layering as 14% to then to 67% - you would look into the whole system - now you state a dead even 0 gain - keep going - there is much more.

Second - Our porcess is not Linear - you are incorrect - the volume in the internal layers changes at a disproportionate rate than each successive layer - this result in a a greater diffirential force applied in the internal layers during a stroke. Reducing the ratio to the downward force above each layer.

The result is that as we double our lifitng requirement - we do not have to double our input. (we are using energy - not just force)
We use the Non linear function to our advantage - in the next phase.

Third - our lateral transfer of energy - two system ZED which you have yet to include in your opinions - recieves over half the total operating cost from the other Zed each stroke - at the Non linear value linear value.

By itself - the Lateral transfer makes a two ZED system near a Zero cost process for one of the ZED - if you reduce in operation the input cost by 50% each - that is the same as 100% for one. SO if we only had that gain - one of our ZED's runs for free.
I pray you are just supplying incomplete data - as I said before - it is unprofessional to make, Opinions, and Incomplete assumptions.
As was shown before - all the head is still in the system after the load is removed -(do not let the system float up after tthe load is removed - and you have the complete head still available). You calcs only show the energy taken out - not the value left behind.

Let me be hopeful - that you and the others are not simply disinformationists.

Our proof and resolve is complete.

Wayne Travis

[Low-Q]

Hello Vidar,
I read your statement several times - because you both made our point and then concluded the opposite?
"The concrete block is independent of the cup, and therfor assist in pushing the cup upwards with the same amount of force as the other cup."
And then concluded with:

"Other than showing the experiment, it is practically useless."

You imply - Just As Tommy did - that the video shows that the volume is reduced by the non attached block to get the same for out of a system with much more air ----becasue the block takes up the space of the air - which makes it equal to the other cup---which results in less air need to lift the same amount-----

and then

"That means if the concrete block is suppose to be a part of a machine, it would not be possible to work as a over balanced wheel."

Vidar, to be clear;

We don't lift the concrete block - we do not  have an overbalanced wheel?

Or anthing remotely related.

I hope this helps,

Wayne

it's hard to be clear in a non-native language


Well, this experiment displays nothing unusual. The displaced water will cause the water level inside the cup to descend. The pressure between the walls of the block and the cup is the force which keeps the weight in place at the same level as the other cup filled with only air. So the pressure is the same in the two cases.


If the block is suppose to follow the cup in an over balanced wheel, the pressure against the block and the cup will cancel out, leaving the tiny volume of air inside the cup as the final cause of buoyancy. That means the cup with the block inside no longer can lift the same weight as the air filled cup.


Still not a good explanation, but I hope it helps 


An over balance wheel made with this concept will therfor not work. The counterforce that balance the whole system is explained above. No rotation. No free energy from this - if that was the goal...


Vidar